Why CDs May Actually Sound Better Than Vinyl

[f1eng]

There is nothing wrong with preferring LPs to CDs, that is simply a matter of taste.
OTOH CD has far fewer, maybe none if properly engineered, inaccuracies that LPs. As somebody who has been making recordings, both of music and data (and music is, strictly speaking air pressure fluctuation data) for about 50 years and worked in R&D in the record player business in the mid 1970s I have two bits of experience which I regard as 99% sure, which nobody without any recording experience could have knowledge of.
The first is that the euphonic colourations added by both the analogue recording process to tape and then the subsequent manipulation of the signal to make an LP playable and an LP side of acceptable length cuttable have all been known for over 40 years.
Anybody who has done music recordings and has had the opportunity to compare the off-tape sound to the direct microphone feed will know that there is a bigger difference on an analogue tape recorder than on any digital recorder, as long as levels are correctly set. To my ears it is possible to make a recording of the type of music I do where the off-tape (it isn't tape any more of course but the nomenclature sticks) is indistinguishable from the microphone feed.

That is not to say I don't like playing LPs, I have 4 record players, all sound different to each other and I like them all but play one of them most. I just don't think it is plausible that there is some magic as-yet-explained-by-man "superiority" explanation of why LPs sound nice when the known shortcomings explain the difference in sound between CD and LP perfectly well.
The CD will be much closer in sound to what the recording engineer produced, IME, but that doesn't stop the LP sounding nicer to somebody who either has a differently balanced system/room or just different taste in sound balance. Also there are far more ways to tune sound to taste with LPs since the components of a record player, particularly cartridges, can have big differences between them.

 

[bonzo75]

Frank, I agree your Devialet and Goldmund Reference sounds the same. Given the convenience factor, happy to help you make space by storing the Goldmund at mine

 

[ddk]

Not sure who the author is or the purpose of his article and the target audience. Is it for the Crosley crowd or the digital is best crowd, whoever it is he seems to be at odds with his own findings. When he comes up people preferring analog LP over CD instead of accepting analog's overall superiority, at least for these listeners, he resorts back to the same rubbish that these people must like some mythical type of distortion or are brainwashed into pleasure through the zen like ritual of dropping the needle into a groove; this guy probably never setup a complex arm/table and worse still a cheap table to know how un-zen and frustrating it can be!

I've had excellent digital sound for nearly two decades and found out that a lot of the digital's artifacts mentioned in these threads like midrange glare, jitter, etc., like analog are hardware related starting with the quality of your transport, i.e. your tt deck, imo it's critical, the digital cable, think phono cables and then the DAC which is the digital equivalent of the phono stage, every link is important. With experience hardware issues can be managed and overcome but you can't do anything about the nature of the beast. Neil Young's quote outstanding quote; "Because vinyl is a reflection and any digital is a reconstitution; it's not the same thing" sums it up perfectly for me. Bottom line, high end audio for me as an end user is only about emotional connections I find the rest of it mental masturbation. In graphic terms digital just doesn't give a lot of people wood so it can't get you there! It's a reconstruction with Machine language!

david

Interesting read


http://www.laweekly.com/music/why-cds-may-actually-sound-better-than-vinyl-5352162

 

[f1eng]

Frank, I agree your Devialet and Goldmund Reference sounds the same. Given the convenience factor, happy to help you make space by storing the Goldmund at mine

Well digital into the Devialet and Goldmund Ref into the Devialet do not sound the same, as you have experienced I am completely sure from my experience that the digital is more or less exactly what the recording engineer released, whether one likes it or not, and the sound of my Golmund is coloured both by the modifications to the signal need to make it possible to cut a playable LP and my chosen colourations in my choice of components.

Back to looking after some of the delightful small grandchildren I am on holiday with!

 

[bonzo75]

Well but you do agree that Goldmund, though you call it coloured, sounds more real on the tone of violins and brass, for example

 

[microstrip]

microstrip

I agree with you up to a point: That a vast number of people believe in something does not make of it an objective data. For a long time most believe Earth to be flat...

Sorry, sound reproduction is a subjective matter and deals essentially with preference. Once preference is properly analyzed it becomes objective data. Preference per se is not a belief.

How do you think that audibility thresholds were established and became objective?

The only think that can be picked from your argument is that I prefer my LPs to be flat - both by subjective and objective reasons.

 

[thedudeabides]

Preference per se is not a belief.

You are correct. It's that individual person's reality.

 

[bonzo75]

The people who believe the earth is flat probably listen to Britney spears on expensive digital

 

[Joe Whip]

Personally, I enjoy computer audio far more than I even did listening to music through my VPI/Kuzma/Clearaudio vinyl rig. But, that's just me. This whole thread is like arguing over which ice cream flavor is best. It is all a matter of personal preference. I don't see the need to insult someone based upon how they like to listen to music.

 

[f1eng]

Well but you do agree that Goldmund, though you call it coloured, sounds more real on the tone of violins and brass, for example

Depends on the recording.
There is a much bigger difference in SQ between different recordings than between competent hifi systems, which is why I haven't got too precious about SQ differences in equipment for the last 15-20 years.

 

[bonzo75]

And if you are into classical, tough to love without the 50s to 80s recordings

 

[thedudeabides]

The people who believe the earth is flat probably listen to Britney spears on expensive digital

Or they may prefer listening to Britney on expensive analogue. You just never know what those flatearthers might do.

Hopefully, one of these days, folks will cease making generalized, subjective, edgy comments like this on WBF.

 

[Ron Resnick]

. . . Neil Young's quote outstanding quote; "Because vinyl is a reflection and any digital is a reconstitution; it's not the same thing" . . .

This reminds me of The Quest For Perfect Sound, the article I love by Edward Rothstein of The New Republic (December 30, 1985) explaining the passion for high-end audio. In the article there is a quote to the effect that analog seeks to approximate perfection, but digital perfects an approximation.

 

[Al M.]

There is nothing wrong with preferring LPs to CDs, that is simply a matter of taste.
OTOH CD has far fewer, maybe none if properly engineered, inaccuracies that LPs.

[…]

I just don't think it is plausible that there is some magic as-yet-explained-by-man "superiority" explanation of why LPs sound nice when the known shortcomings explain the difference in sound between CD and LP perfectly well.

This whole thread is like arguing over which ice cream flavor is best. It is all a matter of personal preference. I don't see the need to insult someone based upon how they like to listen to music.

I am a digital-only listener, and I will never have a vinyl set-up. Even in the hypothetical case that someone were to give me a vinyl rig as a gift, I would never use it. Too much hassle, and in my own system I could not listen past clicks & pops, something that I can easily do in other people's homes.

Yet I still think that great analog sounds superior to most digital. This has nothing to do with 'warmth', 'euphonics', 'preference' or 'taste'. Or with the idea that LPs are 'nice' sounding (seriously?). You are simply mistaken if you think it is any of this, neither for me nor for many others. And yes, I am certainly aware of the technical shortcomings of analog and that the medium may introduce some colorations that digital does not have, even though the latter often clearly has its own colorations too. Yet it is not about colorations of sound for me.

It is about timbral believability, the likeness to the sound of unamplified instruments heard in live situations. Now of course you could not know how the original instrument really sounded that is on a particular recording. Only the recording engineer knows. Yet there is a certain spectrum, depending on where you sit in a concert hall, the acoustics of the hall etc. of how a real instrument can sound in real space. I expect a reproduction to lie somewhere along this rather wide spectrum. It is about timbral believability. I do not have to know exactly how the violin or piano sounded in the performance that was captured on a certain recording, but it should believably sound like a violin or piano. And that can be a warm, neutral or even cold sound, a dark or bright sound, depending on acoustic and other factors.

And when it comes to timbral believability and harmonic integrity of reproduced sound, great analog on the best recordings/pressings simply beats most digital by a rather considerable margin, especially when it comes to certain instruments or instrument groups, regardless of potential colorations of the medium. But analog may not beat all of digital. The best digital that I have heard, the dCS Vivaldi stack and the dCS Rossini DAC (driven by the model of CD transport that I own) can reproduce CDs with enormous timbral believability. For example, I have never heard any recording of tenor or baritone saxophone sound really convincing on digital. Ever. Until I heard the dCS Rossini. Very, very convincing. That DAC for example also brings out the wooden body of a violin better than any other DAC that I have heard. More like great analog and more like violin in most live situations (granted, in some live situations the instrument can sound steely and thin too).

Is the dCS gear designed to bring out this timbral believability through coloration? Very unlikely. In fact, for many years people have complained about dCS gear, while being highly resolving, as sounding cold and sterile. As I understand it, the company has always relied on creating their own algorithms, the practical implementation thereof in electronics, and on extensive measurements first. It has relied on listening tests only second. Its approach to digital engineering is heavily tech-oriented, rather than geared than towards 'audiophile tastes'. This does not seem to have changed with the newest iteration of dCS gear that is so natural sounding. It seems that this convincing sound is just the inevitable outgrowth from further improvements of algorithms and the practical implementation thereof. My impression is that this technical progress simply allows to hear better what is actually on a good CD, and that is a sound much more natural and highly resolving than I have heard thus far from the medium. In fact, it's stunning.

Well but you do agree that Goldmund, though you call it coloured, sounds more real on the tone of violins and brass, for example

That is precisely the question to ask. Timbral believability, realism.

 

[Ron Resnick]

. . . While I can very much enjoy vinyl in the systems of others, and have learned to ignore the clicks and pops, they would absolutely drive me crazy if I had vinyl in mine. As someone once aptly put it, "analog is a land you enjoy to visit, but you could never live there"

When I was a teenager I was so obsessed with clicks and pops that I would try to clean an LP and then play it just to see if the most annoying click was still there. Totally silly of course, but my OCD with regard to that was really, really bad. Fortunately, CD solved the OCD problem in an instant, and I was 'healed'. . .

I totally understand this.

To cope with LP playback I have to pretend that I am not OCD. Any dismay about ticks and pops is, for me, more than outweighed by the quality of the sound.

But knowing that cartridge set-up is a black art and that a record's ticks and pops might sound slightly different after each cleaning and worrying about things like adjusting VTA for different records and knowing that by changing by even a tiny amount any of the LP playback parameters the sound will change all makes LP playback difficult for perfectionists to deal with.

LP playback is like sex: messy, organic, unpredictable, unrepeatable . . . but ultimately charming and fulfilling.

 

[PeterA]

There is nothing wrong with preferring LPs to CDs, that is simply a matter of taste.
OTOH CD has far fewer, maybe none if properly engineered, inaccuracies that LPs. As somebody who has been making recordings, both of music and data (and music is, strictly speaking air pressure fluctuation data) for about 50 years and worked in R&D in the record player business in the mid 1970s I have two bits of experience which I regard as 99% sure, which nobody without any recording experience could have knowledge of.
The first is that the euphonic colourations added by both the analogue recording process to tape and then the subsequent manipulation of the signal to make an LP playable and an LP side of acceptable length cuttable have all been known for over 40 years.
Anybody who has done music recordings and has had the opportunity to compare the off-tape sound to the direct microphone feed will know that there is a bigger difference on an analogue tape recorder than on any digital recorder, as long as levels are correctly set. To my ears it is possible to make a recording of the type of music I do where the off-tape (it isn't tape any more of course but the nomenclature sticks) is indistinguishable from the microphone feed.

That is not to say I don't like playing LPs, I have 4 record players, all sound different to each other and I like them all but play one of them most. I just don't think it is plausible that there is some magic as-yet-explained-by-man "superiority" explanation of why LPs sound nice when the known shortcomings explain the difference in sound between CD and LP perfectly well.
The CD will be much closer in sound to what the recording engineer produced, IME, but that doesn't stop the LP sounding nicer to somebody who either has a differently balanced system/room or just different taste in sound balance. Also there are far more ways to tune sound to taste with LPs since the components of a record player, particularly cartridges, can have big differences between them.

f1eng, Do you think that the direct microphone feed sounds similar to the sound of actual live music? And if so, how different do the two sound to you? As one who has a lot of experience in this area, how would you describe their differences?

I ask because, I do not doubt what you write about a digital recording being more accurate to the direct microphone feed. So I assume with all of that accuracy with the digital recording itself, if the digital recording does not sound like live music, then the digital replay equipment must be at fault. I'm curious because with my limited experience, I think that reproduction through a very good analog system with a very good record actually sounds TO ME more like what I hear when I listen to live classical music, either in a chamber setting or at a great hall like where I hear the Boston Symphony Orchestra.

For me it is about timbral accuracy, presence, dynamics and tone. Perhaps "accuracy" is the wrong word here, based on what you suggest in your post. From my own listening to solo cello, for example, I get that sound more often from a well recorded LP than from any digital that I have ever heard. However, I have not heard a direct mic feed in a recording studio. I guess the closest I have come to that is a mic feed going through some board at a small scale jazz venue. And on those occasions, I would prefer the sound without it going through the mic and being amplified.

In the end, I am more interested in the sound of the final product as I hear in through my system in my room, and in which format sounds more real to me. Whether one more closely resembles the mic feed is a secondary concern to me, if the final product does not sound real.

Finally, why do you think that analog, with all of its known inherent flaws, is still favored by so many people for its sound quality? I think, that to them, as to me, it sounds more real. But, intellectually, I fully admit that I don't understand why that would be the case. Are we analog guys simply preferring grossly colored reproduced music thinking it actually sounds more real to us?

 

[Al M.]

LP playback is like sex: messy, organic, unpredictable, unrepeatable . . . but ultimately charming and fulfilling.

 

[thedudeabides]

analog seeks to approximate perfection, but digital perfects an approximation.

With all due respect, another subjective generalization that is meaningless. I'm glad you and others like vinyl. I'm glad myself and others prefer digital.

 

[Al M.]

This reminds me of The Quest For Perfect Sound, the article I love by Edward Rothstein of The New Republic (December 30, 1985) explaining the passion for high-end audio. In the article there is a quote to the effect that analog seeks to approximate perfection, but digital perfects an approximation.

Which is technically incorrect. In theory digital allows for a perfect reconstitution of the original audible signal, not in approximation, but as an accurate copy. That digital so far has not been able to approach theoretical perfection in its practical implementations is another matter. The latest dCS gear may come much closer to this than what we had heard previously in more than three decades of imperfect 'Perfect Sound Forever'.

 

[PeterA]

...Yet I still think that great analog sounds superior to most digital. This has nothing to do with 'warmth', 'euphonics', 'preference' or 'taste'. Or with the idea that LPs are 'nice' sounding (seriously?). You are simply mistaken if you think it is any of this, neither for me nor for many others. And yes, I am certainly aware of the technical shortcomings of analog and that the medium may introduce some colorations that digital does not have, even though the latter often clearly has its own colorations too. Yet it is not about colorations of sound for me.

It is about timbral believability, the likeness to the sound of unamplified instruments heard in live situations. Now of course you could not know how the original instrument really sounded that is on a particular recording. Only the recording engineer knows. Yet there is a certain spectrum, depending on where you sit in a concert hall, the acoustics of the hall etc. of how a real instrument can sound in real space. I expect a reproduction to lie somewhere along this rather wide spectrum. It is about timbral believability. I do not have to know exactly how the violin or piano sounded in the performance that was captured on a certain recording, but it should believably sound like a violin or piano. And that can be a warm, neutral or even cold sound, a dark or bright sound, depending on acoustic and other factors.

And when it comes to timbral believability and harmonic integrity of reproduced sound, great analog on the best recordings/pressings simply beats most digital by a rather considerable margin, especially when it comes to certain instruments or instrument groups, regardless of potential colorations of the medium...



That is precisely the question to ask. Timbral believability, realism.

Al, Your post gets to the heard of what I was trying to ask f1eng, and what I think is THE critical issue when it comes to music reproduction. You just wrote it in a much more clear and concise way. Excellent writing.